Many say that SLT has so many advantages over SLR:No vibrations since mirror does not move: FALSE a sturdy camera body does not suffer from that especially Nikon (try even D60,D3000 over any Sony and feel the difference)Faster fps : True up to 12 but how many times and who will need that? OK not bad to have Better autofocus especially during video: True worth only if you take a lot of videosMirror is a nightmare to clean very sensitive and dirt show on pictures on your SLTElectronic viewfinders gives 100% view. Not so usefull as you might think plus not accurate and especially colors.Its a nightmare to use during manual focus on thin and small subjects like a small brunch etc. I dont believe that an Oled one will be so good as Sony claims especially during low lightSLT underexpose by 1/3 of a stop

Mirror vibration can be an issue, but a rather niche one. Typically it will only show up at very long focal lengths. No moving mirror = no problem. But for day to day shooting this is a non-issue.Mirror dirt on SLT is less of a problem than you think. The further away you get from the sensor plane, the more blurred out the dust gets. It will be a bigger problem on your sensor long before it is a problem on the mirror.SLT's don't under-expose. They expose as good as any other system. But I guess you meant that SLT mirror would "eat" 1/3 of a stop of light. For most people this is insignificant, and you would see a bigger difference than that comparing different sensors even.

Better autofocus especially during video: True worth only if you take a lot of videos

Incorrect. SLT technology does not need to 'predict' where the target will be because it's following it all the time.

Laertiscy wrote:

Mirror is a nightmare to clean very sensitive and dirt show on pictures on your SLT

Incorrect, as Popo has explained. If necessary, Sony can replace it.

Laertiscy wrote:

Electronic viewfinders gives 100% view. Not so usefull as you might think plus not accurate and especially colors.Its a nightmare to use during manual focus on thin and small subjects like a small brunch etc. I dont believe that an Oled one will be so good as Sony claims especially during low light

It is accurate - it's 100 %, and not 98 % or 99 %, unlike some professional models of other manufacturers. Regarding the colours, it obviously is influenced by the white balance and the creative style setting - the portrait setting will differ from the natural or landscape setting. There's no tearing or anything whatsoever. Just like on the NEX series, there's peaking, which works excellently. The viewfinder's image (or the LCD's, for that matter) can be enlarged significantly (up to 11.7x). And it's not as noisy as you'd expect in low-light. There are a number of reasons why the rest of the world calls it the world's very best EVF.

Laertiscy wrote:

SLT underexpose by 1/3 of a stop

Incorrect. Their 1200 zones metering system offers excellent results and does not underexpose at all. Just ask all the reviewers who tested the camera.

Your thread topic was 'pros and cons', but it appears that you wanted to offer nothing but 'cons' and all based on your own personal opinion. And while you are entitled to that opinion, it doesn't seem to have any real point or relevance being in the Sony board other than to point out how you, as a Nikon shooter, dislike Sony SLTs based on your own personal theories or biases. Does that really help anyone, or make you feel any better, or make your camera perform any better, or make anyone with an SLT suddenly incapable of good shots? Likely not.

And no, I'm not being defensive...because I do not own nor shoot with an SLT model, and for my personal preferences I like my DSLR model better, for my needs. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them as an option. To answer some of your observations with counterpoints:

No vibrations since mirror doesn't move isn't 'false'...it's fact. Now it may be a fact that most DSLRs don't suffer noticeable mirror slap either by good design, or the way they are being used (when used handheld, mirror slap is not an issue as your hands absorb the vibration - it's only an effect for tripod-mounted or fixed surface shooting. And indeed, many DSLRs offer a mirror lock up mode specifically BECAUSE of the mirror slap vibration. Even the manufacturers admit it exists and give you a workaround for it.

Faster FPS - who needs it? Well, who needs 3fps? Who needs 5? Who needs 8? There are always people who may need, or more importantly WANT, those abilities. It's a plus, and if it's not needed, simply don't use it.

Better autofocus during video...actually, this is true for ANY video...especially considering a large number of DSLRs have NO autofocus during video, and many that do are painfully slow...with the SLT models, they all have fast, normal, phase-detect AF during video, even in low light.

Mirror is a nightmare to clean - another theory of yours? Have you had nightmares cleaning it? How many times did you have to clean yours? How much dirt and dust showed up in your SLT photos and after how long? My guess is - you haven't shot with one. My observation is that if this was a big problem, camera forums would be filled with threads about it. They're not. It doesn't seem to have been an issue in real life, it doesn't seem that it's been hard to clean, and it doesn't seem to show any dirt or dust problems different than any sensor dust typically does.

Electronic viewfinders 100% view - why not so useful as you might think? Name an example where the 100% view was not useful. As far as accuracy or color...who says it isn't accurate? As for manual focus, I've yet to hear of it being a 'nightmare' to use the EVF, and in fact, this seems to be one area where the EVF presents BIG advantages - because you have the ability to do two things: Engage focus peaking to highlight contrast edges, and engage magnification to zoom in and see a small accurate part of the subject to ensure focus is accurate down to the millimeter. As far as not believing that an OLED one won't be so good as Sony claims - why not actually try one and see, rather than stating that it won't be as good without actually knowing?

SLT underexpose by 1/3 stop? Actually, no...they don't. They expose exactly the same as any other camera. The exposure will come out just as you set it, and just as the settings indicate. The camera is designed to automatically 'gain up' the sensor by a small amount to compensate for the small amount of light loss caused by the translucent mirror, so you will never see the difference when shooting. ISO100, F5, and 1/100 will look the same on an SLT, a Nikon DSLR, a Canon DSLR, or a Pentax DSLR.

Are there pros and cons to an SLT? Of course. Just as there are with DSLRs. And mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. And P&S cameras. All cameras have pros and cons. It's up to each person to decide if the pros outweigh the cons for YOUR particular needs and shooting style. I did not find SLTs to be the best fit for me, so I went another direction, but I don't go around trying to steer other people away from them, because it would be egotistical and wrong-headed to assume everyone else has the exact same needs, wants, and opinions as I do.